Halberds and Flintlocks in Days of Yore
Hey folks! Let me apologize up front: there's a brief election section in this post. For those of you who are more sick of the election than I am, it's the middle section, and it's separated by asterisks. First, the news.
The BBC, generally purveyors of sorrow, cynicism, and bad news, have an article about America's unlikely allies among the Afghan populace. Now, they put the typical asinine BBC spin on it, but the fact that they're highlighting the fact that there are Afghans who are still strongly pro-American after seven years of ISAF presence in the country, and who acknowledge the efforts by America and the allies to rebuild and promote prosperity in the country, is good in my book.
There are three interesting articles about the recent American raid on the Syrian side of the Syrian/Iraqi border. The Times reports that the raid "damaged British talks with Syria", which is a topic I hope to cover later in the week. Danger Room has a good, no nonsense post on the subject that gives concise details about the raid and its target. Meanwhile, the always excellent Michael Yon has a new article about the raid - it's insightful, it's concise, and it's worth reading.
Writing for UPI, Stefan Nicola claims that Germany can be a strategic asset for the next president. I've written previously about Germany's recent de-pacification, but the Germans have also had a very lackluster record during their deployments to Afghanistan. As I've noted a couple of times recently, one hundred KSK commandos spent three years in Afghanistan without going on a single mission, and the Afghan deployments remain unpopular with German voters. Although the election of Angela Merkel to the chancellorship several years ago was a good sign, we can rest assured that German citizens won't support sending additional troops anywhere (or letting them fight) at the request of a President McCain. And if, God forbid a thousand times, we end up with a President Obama, something tells me that the Hasselhoff-esque support he enjoys among Germans would collapse entirely if he asked them to take on a larger military role. Most of the reason that so many Europeans like Obama is that they think, and probably rightly so, that he's a pacifist like them. Pacifism happens to be a luxury of the defended, and even the anti-military President Clinton realized that sometimes, military force is the only option. That having been said, I think that it's tough in retrospect to justify his decisions to deploy troops to Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Iraq*, but the point is that an idealistic Senator Obama would have to either compromise, or fail with regards to foreign policy if he refused to use American troops for anything beyond what they're already doing.
A few days ago, I reported that the MEK had won an EU court case, which is a diplomatic blow to the Iranian regime. Almost like clockwork, Iran has formally criticized the West for its "new approach toward terrorism". This from a country that supports the Taliban. And Hamas. And probably the FARC in Colombia. And basically owns the Jaish al Mahdi militia and Hezbollah. And I think there's some more. Speaking of Iran and Hezbollah, Michael Totten also has a new article up about Lebanon, Israel, and Hezbollah titled Lebanon's Enemy Within that's very much worth reading if you have any interest in the region.
And, on a lighter note, archaeologists believe that they may have found King Solomon's mines; however, Allan Quatermain could not be reached for comment.
* * *
I was on the phone with a close friend of mine last week, and both of us are shooting enthusiasts for many different reasons. He made it clear that while he was ambivalent about Senator Obama, the Second Amendment was an important issue to him. Hoping that he'll have a chance to read the blog prior to casting his ballot, I decided to get some actual facts to make the case that Obama has little or no respect for the God-given right to keep and bear arms.
I started with a standard Google search, and came up with a page at On The Issues. I also checked the Factcheck.org site on the subject, even though Factcheck.org's reliability and neutrality have taken a hit in this election due to their ignorance of a number of "misstatements" by Obama and Biden during the debates. Although the Factcheck.org write-up does impressive acrobatics to paint Obama as being reasonable on the Second Amendment, even they admit the following:
Obama has called for national legislation against carrying concealed firearms
Obama would revive and make permanent the expired ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons" - both rifles and handguns
Obama favors government registration of handguns
I'm uncomfortable about all three of these positions. So, I decided to go check out the NRA site on the subject. The thing about sites like Factcheck.org is that they tend to be run by the same sort of folks who do the research and fact-checking for major media outlets - the point being, they're not experts on guns. I can't tell you how many times I've been furious to hear a .223 Remington round described as a "high-powered .22". If there's one group that can be trusted to actually know about guns, ammunition, and the laws that impact them, it's the NRA. So, even if you come to the conclusion that Senator Obama's voting history with respect to guns is somewhere between what Factcheck.org and the NRA say, I'm still terrified. One item that the NRA points out that should be considered important:
When I was on the phone with my friend, I mentioned an exchange that I heard on the Michael Medved Show between Medved and someone who had briefly discussed the issue with Obama when he was a law instructor at the University of Chicago. The same gentleman was on again on Friday, I heard the podcast on Monday, and he recounted the exchange once again. Now remembering his name (Professor John Lott), I was able to find a description in writing.
Lott has articles published by Fox from April '08 (during the primaries), the Washington Post from August, and the Philadelphia Inquirer from a couple of weeks ago. The three articles are similar, but they're each unique and worth reading.
I'll make this final point, and then let the issue rest. The Second Amendment protects hunters, but it's not about hunting; it protects sportsmen, but it's not about sports. The historical context of the Second Amendment, which you'll remember to have been written in 1787 (four years after the American Revolution ended), was the American Revolution. During the Revolution, independence was declared and won by a handful of citizen militias that rose up against the British government, and the Founders believed so strongly that Americans had the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of rising up against their government, if necessary, that they wrote it into the Constitution to make it clear that the right was inalienable. The Second Amendment has statements about a "well-regulated militia", but the underlying purpose and intent of the Second Amendment was to give citizens not only the right to stand up against a tyrannical government, but also the deterrent to prevent an American government from becoming tyrannical in the first place. I'm not advocating another violent revolution; I'm pointing out that uninfringed ownership of weapons by a patriotic body of law-abiding citizens is what prevents such a need in the first place. Any politician who wants to chip away at that freedom is a politician who shouldn't be trusted, whether for nefarious reasons or for simple historical ignorance and poor judgment. It's just one of several important reasons why Senator Obama won't be getting my vote.
* * *
In lieu of any other chicanery, the entertainment portion of today's post is a conversation between myself and Mrs. Mike Nelson. For those of you who used to flip out when I would post conversations between myself and CCG, let it be known that Mrs. Mike Nelson gave me permission to post this.
The Fly: [sends Mrs. Mike Nelson a picture of Godzilla requesting pudding - inside MST3K joke]
Mrs. Mike Nelson: AWESOME! I needed that...
The Fly: Glad to help.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: You know, jelly beans make me happy.
The Fly: So, if there are jelly beans the next time we hang out, that would be good?
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Very good. But I only mention that right now because I am eating them and they're making me smile :)
The Fly: Oh, okay. That makes more sense. I'm stoked because I ate half of a delicious sandwich for lunch, I'll eat the other half of a delicious sandwich for dinner, and I didn't have to spend a dime on it.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Free food rocks! When I was interning in Richmond at the General Assembly, we NEVER had to pay for food. People fed us for free. It was a beautiful thing.
The Fly: At the risk of one-upmanship (not that you'll be jealous), I think I can beat that. The Army ALWAYS has food, and usually too much of it to make sure that all of the soldiers get enough. [One time when I was training soldiers in California], I dug a hole to hide in while waiting for the unit that was there training (elements of 1CAV, I think) to come to my position [for a training event]. Several days in a row, I literally ended up with "hot" breakfast (that had cooled by the time it arrived at my position) delivered directly to my hole. I called it hole service. Awesome. I think I still have a picture of the last "hot chow" breakfast I ate out there on my phone. I ate off the hood of my HMMWV.
The Fly: Sometimes I hate that I can't tell short stories.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Hmm...yeah, I think my story is more...shall we say...civilized.
The Fly: I can be civilized. You've never even asked me about that time when I wore a powdered wig and shot a guy at fifty paces with a flintlock pistol for insulting that young lady's honor!
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Sometimes, when I really think about the things you say, I worry about you.
The Fly: I guess the powdered wig was a bit too much?
Mrs. Mike Nelson: LOL...not really what you said, but the speed in which you typed it and emailed it back. Makes me wonder, that's all.
The Fly: Keep in mind, I type at about ninety words per minute, and faster in short segments.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Good for you!
The Fly: So there I was, pistol in hand, and boy howdy! Those pantaloons were sure riding up...
Mrs. Mike Nelson: I take it you won?
The Fly: Of course I won, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who's a better shot than I am. Even while wearing pantaloons and a powdered wig.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: And with a wedgie.
The Fly: That Colonial-era duel was hell on the both of us. Mostly him, though. You know, on account of the gunshot wound.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: What happened to the girl?
The Fly: While she was on her way to India to become a governess for the children of a high-ranking British official, her ship was hijacked by Somali pirates and she was never heard from again. Also, I learned later through a third-party intermediary that she actually hadn't possessed the requisite degree of honor to warrant that degree of flintlock-oriented satisfaction. I didn't protest, though, because the guy was an insolent cur.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Ah, so because she wasn't pure enough to your satisfaction, you transferred your "duty" as that of killing a jerk. Some things never change :)
The Fly: Who said anything about killing? These are flintlock pistols we're talking about, not Colt .45s. Once he stopped limping, he knew not to cross me again! Or to call me "fancy pants" when I'm wearing pantaloons, to be more specific.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Excuse me, next time I will be more accurate with the weapons of yore.
The Fly: To be fair, and simultaneously anal retentive , I don't know that I'd describe flintlock pistols as having come from the days of "yore". Halberds, maybe, or claymores.
The Fly: Then there was that time that I single-handedly saved President Roosevelt (the first one, not that wanker FDR) from a herd of stampeding water buffaloes.
The Fly: Seriously, it's like I'm playing Mad Libs.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Introduced about 1630, the flintlock rapidly replaced earlier firearm-ignition technologies, such as the matchlock and wheellock mechanisms. It continued to be in common use for over two centuries, replaced by percussion cap and, later, cartridge-based systems in the early-to-mid 19th century. The Model 1840 U.S. musket was the last flintlock firearm produced for the U.S. military although there is evidence obsolete flintlocks were seeing action in the earliest days of the American Civil War. In fact, during the first year of the war, the Army of Tennessee (Confederacy) had over 2,000 flintlock muskets in service. While technologically obsolete, flintlock firearms have enjoyed a renaissance among black powder shooting enthusiasts and many fine flintlock rifles and pistols are being made today.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Sure sounds "yore" to me...
The Fly: That was literally the perfect response.
So, can you folks name all of the inside references I made in that exchange? The MST3K one should start you off with one. Any guesses?
Have a great day, and check back tomorrow!
* President Clinton's decision to attack Iraq was legitimate. Or at least, it would have been if he'd actually followed through with it, instead of doing some half-assed unilateral air strikes. He also should have done so earlier in his administration, instead of timing Operation Desert Fox coincidentally close to the time of his legal troubles over the Lewinsky scandal. The major utility of Desert Fox was to demonstrate the double standard that the media and leftist partisans (not to be confused with regular Americans with a D next to their name) show to military operations when they're ordered by a Democrat, versus when they're ordered by a Republican. Bosnia wasn't our fight to get involved with, and as far as I can tell, Clinton may have actually intervened on the wrong side in Kosovo. Anyway, I digress.
The BBC, generally purveyors of sorrow, cynicism, and bad news, have an article about America's unlikely allies among the Afghan populace. Now, they put the typical asinine BBC spin on it, but the fact that they're highlighting the fact that there are Afghans who are still strongly pro-American after seven years of ISAF presence in the country, and who acknowledge the efforts by America and the allies to rebuild and promote prosperity in the country, is good in my book.
There are three interesting articles about the recent American raid on the Syrian side of the Syrian/Iraqi border. The Times reports that the raid "damaged British talks with Syria", which is a topic I hope to cover later in the week. Danger Room has a good, no nonsense post on the subject that gives concise details about the raid and its target. Meanwhile, the always excellent Michael Yon has a new article about the raid - it's insightful, it's concise, and it's worth reading.
Writing for UPI, Stefan Nicola claims that Germany can be a strategic asset for the next president. I've written previously about Germany's recent de-pacification, but the Germans have also had a very lackluster record during their deployments to Afghanistan. As I've noted a couple of times recently, one hundred KSK commandos spent three years in Afghanistan without going on a single mission, and the Afghan deployments remain unpopular with German voters. Although the election of Angela Merkel to the chancellorship several years ago was a good sign, we can rest assured that German citizens won't support sending additional troops anywhere (or letting them fight) at the request of a President McCain. And if, God forbid a thousand times, we end up with a President Obama, something tells me that the Hasselhoff-esque support he enjoys among Germans would collapse entirely if he asked them to take on a larger military role. Most of the reason that so many Europeans like Obama is that they think, and probably rightly so, that he's a pacifist like them. Pacifism happens to be a luxury of the defended, and even the anti-military President Clinton realized that sometimes, military force is the only option. That having been said, I think that it's tough in retrospect to justify his decisions to deploy troops to Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, and Iraq*, but the point is that an idealistic Senator Obama would have to either compromise, or fail with regards to foreign policy if he refused to use American troops for anything beyond what they're already doing.
A few days ago, I reported that the MEK had won an EU court case, which is a diplomatic blow to the Iranian regime. Almost like clockwork, Iran has formally criticized the West for its "new approach toward terrorism". This from a country that supports the Taliban. And Hamas. And probably the FARC in Colombia. And basically owns the Jaish al Mahdi militia and Hezbollah. And I think there's some more. Speaking of Iran and Hezbollah, Michael Totten also has a new article up about Lebanon, Israel, and Hezbollah titled Lebanon's Enemy Within that's very much worth reading if you have any interest in the region.
And, on a lighter note, archaeologists believe that they may have found King Solomon's mines; however, Allan Quatermain could not be reached for comment.
I was on the phone with a close friend of mine last week, and both of us are shooting enthusiasts for many different reasons. He made it clear that while he was ambivalent about Senator Obama, the Second Amendment was an important issue to him. Hoping that he'll have a chance to read the blog prior to casting his ballot, I decided to get some actual facts to make the case that Obama has little or no respect for the God-given right to keep and bear arms.
I started with a standard Google search, and came up with a page at On The Issues. I also checked the Factcheck.org site on the subject, even though Factcheck.org's reliability and neutrality have taken a hit in this election due to their ignorance of a number of "misstatements" by Obama and Biden during the debates. Although the Factcheck.org write-up does impressive acrobatics to paint Obama as being reasonable on the Second Amendment, even they admit the following:
I'm uncomfortable about all three of these positions. So, I decided to go check out the NRA site on the subject. The thing about sites like Factcheck.org is that they tend to be run by the same sort of folks who do the research and fact-checking for major media outlets - the point being, they're not experts on guns. I can't tell you how many times I've been furious to hear a .223 Remington round described as a "high-powered .22". If there's one group that can be trusted to actually know about guns, ammunition, and the laws that impact them, it's the NRA. So, even if you come to the conclusion that Senator Obama's voting history with respect to guns is somewhere between what Factcheck.org and the NRA say, I'm still terrified. One item that the NRA points out that should be considered important:
FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms [in DC v. Heller, the decision that reversed the DC gun ban by one vote]. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.
When I was on the phone with my friend, I mentioned an exchange that I heard on the Michael Medved Show between Medved and someone who had briefly discussed the issue with Obama when he was a law instructor at the University of Chicago. The same gentleman was on again on Friday, I heard the podcast on Monday, and he recounted the exchange once again. Now remembering his name (Professor John Lott), I was able to find a description in writing.
This evidence should be sufficient, but I have yet another reason to be skeptical. I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, when we were both at the University of Chicago Law School, right around the time that he was running for the Illinois State Senate. Indeed, when I introduced myself to him, he said, "Oh, you are the gun guy."
I responded, "Yes, I guess so." His response, as I recall it, was, "I don't believe that people should be able to own guns."
When I said it might be fun sometime to talk about the question and his support of Chicago's lawsuit against gunmakers, he simply grimaced and turned away, ending the conversation.
Lott has articles published by Fox from April '08 (during the primaries), the Washington Post from August, and the Philadelphia Inquirer from a couple of weeks ago. The three articles are similar, but they're each unique and worth reading.
I'll make this final point, and then let the issue rest. The Second Amendment protects hunters, but it's not about hunting; it protects sportsmen, but it's not about sports. The historical context of the Second Amendment, which you'll remember to have been written in 1787 (four years after the American Revolution ended), was the American Revolution. During the Revolution, independence was declared and won by a handful of citizen militias that rose up against the British government, and the Founders believed so strongly that Americans had the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of rising up against their government, if necessary, that they wrote it into the Constitution to make it clear that the right was inalienable. The Second Amendment has statements about a "well-regulated militia", but the underlying purpose and intent of the Second Amendment was to give citizens not only the right to stand up against a tyrannical government, but also the deterrent to prevent an American government from becoming tyrannical in the first place. I'm not advocating another violent revolution; I'm pointing out that uninfringed ownership of weapons by a patriotic body of law-abiding citizens is what prevents such a need in the first place. Any politician who wants to chip away at that freedom is a politician who shouldn't be trusted, whether for nefarious reasons or for simple historical ignorance and poor judgment. It's just one of several important reasons why Senator Obama won't be getting my vote.
In lieu of any other chicanery, the entertainment portion of today's post is a conversation between myself and Mrs. Mike Nelson. For those of you who used to flip out when I would post conversations between myself and CCG, let it be known that Mrs. Mike Nelson gave me permission to post this.
The Fly: [sends Mrs. Mike Nelson a picture of Godzilla requesting pudding - inside MST3K joke]
Mrs. Mike Nelson: AWESOME! I needed that...
The Fly: Glad to help.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: You know, jelly beans make me happy.
The Fly: So, if there are jelly beans the next time we hang out, that would be good?
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Very good. But I only mention that right now because I am eating them and they're making me smile :)
The Fly: Oh, okay. That makes more sense. I'm stoked because I ate half of a delicious sandwich for lunch, I'll eat the other half of a delicious sandwich for dinner, and I didn't have to spend a dime on it.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Free food rocks! When I was interning in Richmond at the General Assembly, we NEVER had to pay for food. People fed us for free. It was a beautiful thing.
The Fly: At the risk of one-upmanship (not that you'll be jealous), I think I can beat that. The Army ALWAYS has food, and usually too much of it to make sure that all of the soldiers get enough. [One time when I was training soldiers in California], I dug a hole to hide in while waiting for the unit that was there training (elements of 1CAV, I think) to come to my position [for a training event]. Several days in a row, I literally ended up with "hot" breakfast (that had cooled by the time it arrived at my position) delivered directly to my hole. I called it hole service. Awesome. I think I still have a picture of the last "hot chow" breakfast I ate out there on my phone. I ate off the hood of my HMMWV.
The Fly: Sometimes I hate that I can't tell short stories.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Hmm...yeah, I think my story is more...shall we say...civilized.
The Fly: I can be civilized. You've never even asked me about that time when I wore a powdered wig and shot a guy at fifty paces with a flintlock pistol for insulting that young lady's honor!
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Sometimes, when I really think about the things you say, I worry about you.
The Fly: I guess the powdered wig was a bit too much?
Mrs. Mike Nelson: LOL...not really what you said, but the speed in which you typed it and emailed it back. Makes me wonder, that's all.
The Fly: Keep in mind, I type at about ninety words per minute, and faster in short segments.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Good for you!
The Fly: So there I was, pistol in hand, and boy howdy! Those pantaloons were sure riding up...
Mrs. Mike Nelson: I take it you won?
The Fly: Of course I won, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who's a better shot than I am. Even while wearing pantaloons and a powdered wig.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: And with a wedgie.
The Fly: That Colonial-era duel was hell on the both of us. Mostly him, though. You know, on account of the gunshot wound.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: What happened to the girl?
The Fly: While she was on her way to India to become a governess for the children of a high-ranking British official, her ship was hijacked by Somali pirates and she was never heard from again. Also, I learned later through a third-party intermediary that she actually hadn't possessed the requisite degree of honor to warrant that degree of flintlock-oriented satisfaction. I didn't protest, though, because the guy was an insolent cur.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Ah, so because she wasn't pure enough to your satisfaction, you transferred your "duty" as that of killing a jerk. Some things never change :)
The Fly: Who said anything about killing? These are flintlock pistols we're talking about, not Colt .45s. Once he stopped limping, he knew not to cross me again! Or to call me "fancy pants" when I'm wearing pantaloons, to be more specific.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Excuse me, next time I will be more accurate with the weapons of yore.
The Fly: To be fair, and simultaneously anal retentive , I don't know that I'd describe flintlock pistols as having come from the days of "yore". Halberds, maybe, or claymores.
The Fly: Then there was that time that I single-handedly saved President Roosevelt (the first one, not that wanker FDR) from a herd of stampeding water buffaloes.
The Fly: Seriously, it's like I'm playing Mad Libs.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Introduced about 1630, the flintlock rapidly replaced earlier firearm-ignition technologies, such as the matchlock and wheellock mechanisms. It continued to be in common use for over two centuries, replaced by percussion cap and, later, cartridge-based systems in the early-to-mid 19th century. The Model 1840 U.S. musket was the last flintlock firearm produced for the U.S. military although there is evidence obsolete flintlocks were seeing action in the earliest days of the American Civil War. In fact, during the first year of the war, the Army of Tennessee (Confederacy) had over 2,000 flintlock muskets in service. While technologically obsolete, flintlock firearms have enjoyed a renaissance among black powder shooting enthusiasts and many fine flintlock rifles and pistols are being made today.
Mrs. Mike Nelson: Sure sounds "yore" to me...
The Fly: That was literally the perfect response.
So, can you folks name all of the inside references I made in that exchange? The MST3K one should start you off with one. Any guesses?
Have a great day, and check back tomorrow!
* President Clinton's decision to attack Iraq was legitimate. Or at least, it would have been if he'd actually followed through with it, instead of doing some half-assed unilateral air strikes. He also should have done so earlier in his administration, instead of timing Operation Desert Fox coincidentally close to the time of his legal troubles over the Lewinsky scandal. The major utility of Desert Fox was to demonstrate the double standard that the media and leftist partisans (not to be confused with regular Americans with a D next to their name) show to military operations when they're ordered by a Democrat, versus when they're ordered by a Republican. Bosnia wasn't our fight to get involved with, and as far as I can tell, Clinton may have actually intervened on the wrong side in Kosovo. Anyway, I digress.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home